[Dan Carlin is one of my favorite independent, conservative thinkers and I appreciate his insights -- in these series of episodes he reflects on current events, including the Occupy Movement]
Show 207 - Stirring The Pot
Bringing people together is on Dan's mind today as he looks at Truth, protests, Pan-National anger and the theoretical idea of a Goldman-Sachs-like entity outing itself as the global overlord.
Notes:
1. “Tony Bennett Changes His Tune on 9/11 Remarks” by Brian Canova for ABC News (The Note), September 21, 2011.
2. “Trader Alessio Rastani To BBC: 'Governments Don't Rule The World, Goldman Sachs Rules The World' ”
3. “As Scorn for Vote Grows, Protests Surge Around Globe” by Nicholas Kulish for The New York Times, September 27, 2011.
Show 208 - The Fruits of Disillusionment
Dan unveils a new streamlined show format while tackling an issue he dealt with in the last episode...the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Notes:
1. “The Tea Party loses another round” by Dana Milbank for The Washington Post, October 15, 2011.
Show 209 - A Show in Pieces
What happens when Dan meanders too far down an intellectual tangent to find his way back to the point? You get "A show in pieces"
Show 210 - Second Guessing the Navigator
Who is setting the national agenda and how do we feel about their choices? Dan discusses everything from the conflict between liberty and democracy to the ability of governments to solve social problems.
Notes:
1. “The Wrong Inequality” by David Brooks for The New York Times, October 31, 2011.
Show 211 - Tyranny of the Unwise
Is it possible that a political system based on voting and elections has less of a chance of producing wise leadership than a monarchy or dictatorship? Dan tries to look at this heretical idea with an open mind.
Notes:
1. “China mocks U.S. political model” by Patrice Hill for The Washington Times, November 9, 2011.
Show 212 - The Very Velvet Fist
What if pepper spray or other modern crowd control tools had been available during the Civil Rights era? Dan looks at the challenges the protest tactic of civil disobedience faces in a 21st Century world.
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Friday, December 9, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Tyrone Reitman: An Oregon Experiment in Citizen Governance
An Oregon Experiment in Citizen Governance: A new law that puts voters in charge of breaking through political spin could be a first step in making policy decisions that work.
by Tyrone Reitman
Yes!
Daily, it seems, we watch as our democracy slips into an increasingly divisive panic attack. Republicans, we’re told, hate Democrats. Democrats, we’re told, hate Republicans. Accountability in our political system seems as tenuous as the economic recovery: Tea Partier, Wall Street Occupier, or none of the above, we all know something's amiss.
Yet as it is, we have a tradition of successful self-governance more than 230 years in the making. Full of beauty, opportunity, and deep scars, our democracy continues as a grand experiment. Rights have been expanded, greater access to the disenfranchised has been afforded, and our democratic institutions endure.
But we seem to be heading towards a political culture where anything goes—claims go unchecked, questions go unasked, and talking points are simply repeated again and again. The choice, however, between playing political games and governing well is ultimately ours: We are the "self" in "self-governance."
What would it be like to have balanced panels of voters publicly weigh in on the most controversial problems of our time? What would it look like to have a fair public review of the really tough issues, like health care policy, immigration, and financial regulation? And what if lawmakers were even to request this kind of input to help in their own decision-making, building greater citizen deliberation into how we 'do' democracy?
In Oregon, citizens have just taken a major step toward changing the game. In July 2011, Governor John Kitzhaber signed into law a bill that institutionalizes a new form of citizen deliberation as part of our election process. The Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR) is an exercise in deliberative democracy. It puts 24 randomly selected voters into a fair public hearing to listen to campaigners, learn the issues, and separate fact from fiction on ballot measures.
or each measure on the ballot, a different panel of 24 voters sorts through the political spin and then summarizes its findings for the voting public to use as they choose on election day.
The authenticity of this approach comes from the simple fact that these panels of voters have no vested interest in the outcome of a CIR. Like a jury, the idea is to perform a public service. Unlike a jury, there are no litigators structuring testimony and calling witnesses—the panel of everyday voters drives the process along.
It’s a relatively new idea (only ten years in the making) that other states with some form of an initiative process already in place should consider as a way to get high-quality information to voters from a source they can trust—themselves.
Traditionally, initiative or referendum votes offer a way for the public to weigh in on proposed laws created outside of or through the legislative process:
1. Citizens petition to put an initiative or referendum on the ballot.
2. Campaigners fight like hell to win your vote with whatever means are at their disposal. Their job is to influence how you vote, not to inform your vote. Some campaigners do a good job of both, but most…well, you be the judge.
3. Citizens vote for or against that measure—either making it law or not—but they do not always feel they know enough about the issue to make an informed decision in light of the non-stop barrage of political spin (accompanied by catchy sound bites like "Measure Six is the Fix" and commercials with montages of wolves, corporate fat cats, or schoolchildren set to spooky music).
Most voters in Oregon support this traditional initiative process. Yet at the same time, large numbers clearly don’t feel confident about their vote when it comes to ballot measures, in large part due to a lack of usable, unbiased information. And that's a major problem when you have to make critical policy decisions every two years on issues like property rights, gay marriage, taxation, and criminal justice.
The big idea of a Citizens’ Initiative Review is to bring together randomly selected registered voters, demographically balanced to reflect the state’s voting population, to sort through the rhetoric and spin. These are not blue ribbon commission members, policy wonks, lobbyists, or political hacks—the CIR is meant to reflect the state’s voters, not the political establishment.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
by Tyrone Reitman
Yes!
Daily, it seems, we watch as our democracy slips into an increasingly divisive panic attack. Republicans, we’re told, hate Democrats. Democrats, we’re told, hate Republicans. Accountability in our political system seems as tenuous as the economic recovery: Tea Partier, Wall Street Occupier, or none of the above, we all know something's amiss.
Yet as it is, we have a tradition of successful self-governance more than 230 years in the making. Full of beauty, opportunity, and deep scars, our democracy continues as a grand experiment. Rights have been expanded, greater access to the disenfranchised has been afforded, and our democratic institutions endure.
But we seem to be heading towards a political culture where anything goes—claims go unchecked, questions go unasked, and talking points are simply repeated again and again. The choice, however, between playing political games and governing well is ultimately ours: We are the "self" in "self-governance."
What would it be like to have balanced panels of voters publicly weigh in on the most controversial problems of our time? What would it look like to have a fair public review of the really tough issues, like health care policy, immigration, and financial regulation? And what if lawmakers were even to request this kind of input to help in their own decision-making, building greater citizen deliberation into how we 'do' democracy?
In Oregon, citizens have just taken a major step toward changing the game. In July 2011, Governor John Kitzhaber signed into law a bill that institutionalizes a new form of citizen deliberation as part of our election process. The Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR) is an exercise in deliberative democracy. It puts 24 randomly selected voters into a fair public hearing to listen to campaigners, learn the issues, and separate fact from fiction on ballot measures.
or each measure on the ballot, a different panel of 24 voters sorts through the political spin and then summarizes its findings for the voting public to use as they choose on election day.
The authenticity of this approach comes from the simple fact that these panels of voters have no vested interest in the outcome of a CIR. Like a jury, the idea is to perform a public service. Unlike a jury, there are no litigators structuring testimony and calling witnesses—the panel of everyday voters drives the process along.
It’s a relatively new idea (only ten years in the making) that other states with some form of an initiative process already in place should consider as a way to get high-quality information to voters from a source they can trust—themselves.
Traditionally, initiative or referendum votes offer a way for the public to weigh in on proposed laws created outside of or through the legislative process:
1. Citizens petition to put an initiative or referendum on the ballot.
2. Campaigners fight like hell to win your vote with whatever means are at their disposal. Their job is to influence how you vote, not to inform your vote. Some campaigners do a good job of both, but most…well, you be the judge.
3. Citizens vote for or against that measure—either making it law or not—but they do not always feel they know enough about the issue to make an informed decision in light of the non-stop barrage of political spin (accompanied by catchy sound bites like "Measure Six is the Fix" and commercials with montages of wolves, corporate fat cats, or schoolchildren set to spooky music).
Most voters in Oregon support this traditional initiative process. Yet at the same time, large numbers clearly don’t feel confident about their vote when it comes to ballot measures, in large part due to a lack of usable, unbiased information. And that's a major problem when you have to make critical policy decisions every two years on issues like property rights, gay marriage, taxation, and criminal justice.
The big idea of a Citizens’ Initiative Review is to bring together randomly selected registered voters, demographically balanced to reflect the state’s voting population, to sort through the rhetoric and spin. These are not blue ribbon commission members, policy wonks, lobbyists, or political hacks—the CIR is meant to reflect the state’s voters, not the political establishment.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)